Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against A1 and others for alleged violation of s. 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a complaint under s. 148(8). HC found that the Board had approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the Cost Auditor had signed the report and annexures on the same date at Kolkata, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, well within the prescribed 30-day period. The alleged delay arose only from a clerical error in typing the date in Form CRA-4. HC also held the complaint, lodged after about three years, to be barred by limitation under s. 468 CrPC.
HC, exercising revisional jurisdiction under s. 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against A1 and others for alleged violation of s. 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, based on a complaint under s. 148(8). HC found that the Board had approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the Cost Auditor had signed the report and annexures on the same date at Kolkata, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, well within the prescribed 30-day period. The alleged delay arose only from a clerical error in typing the date in Form CRA-4. HC also held the complaint, lodged after about three years, to be barred by limitation under s. 468 CrPC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.